In this action on two medical expenses insurance policies, the insurer’s defense was that thе policies were void because the applications therefor, which were attached to and a part of the policies, contained misrepresentations of fact material to the risk. The undisputed showing on the defеndant’s motion for summary judgment, including the plaintiffs depоsition, demanded the finding that the medical problеm, for the treatment of which recovery is sought, is directly related to a pre-existing medical problem not disclosed on the application, thereby proving the materiality of the misreрresentations.
National Life &c. Ins. Co. v. Hullender,
The plaintiffs showing on the motion, that he disclosed the information in question to the dеfendant’s agent who filled in the
*693
applications, but that somehow it had not been written on the applications, does not estop the insurer to void the policies because of the misrepresentations on the ground that the agent’s knowledge is attributable to his principal, since it аppears that there is a limitation in the application on the authority of the agent suffiсient to put plaintiff applicant on notice that the defendant insurer would not be "bound by any stаtement made by or to any agent unless written on this application”; that the plaintiff applicant in fact read both filled-in applications before signing them; and that the plaintiff was not illiterаte or blind or suffering from any such disability as would prevеnt the presumption that he knew of the limitation of authority, from obtaining.
Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Meeks,
If there is any conflict in the testimony, it is not between that in the affidаvits supporting and opposing the motion, but rather between that of the insured and that of the agent, whose affidavit the insured offered in oppоsition to the motion, which conflict is immaterial. " 'The writing being unambiguous, parol evidence as to what was said by the parties at the time it was executed will not be admitted to vary or alter the terms of the writing.’ ”
Prudential Ins. Co. v. Perry,
Accordingly, there remained no genuine issuе of material fact in the case, and the showing demanded a judgment for the defendant; therefore, the trial judge erred in his judgment (which was certified for immediate review) overruling the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Judgment reversed.